Correia Martins Barreira Fernandes v. Portugal

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 53886/22 Virgínia Maria CORREIA MARTINS BARREIRA FERNANDES against Portugal

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 6 October 2026 as a Committee composed of:

Anne Louise Bormann , President , Ana Maria Guerra Martins, Sebastian Răduleţu , judges , and Simeon Petrovski, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the application (no. 53886/22) against the Portuguese Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 17 November 2022 by a Portuguese national, Ms Virgínia Maria Correia Martins Barreira Fernandes (“the applicant”), who was born in 1959, lives in Oporto and was represented by Ms A. Rodrigues Almeida, a lawyer practising in Lisbon;

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1 At the material time, the applicant was a judge at a court of first instance. The application concerns proceedings brought by her in connection with her professional appraisal following an extraordinary inspection ( inspeção extraordinária ) conducted by the High Council of the Judiciary ( Conselho Superior da Magistratura – hereinafter “the CSM”). The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention.

2 Following an extraordinary inspection, the responsible inspector within the CSM rated the applicant’s performance between 2015 and 2019 as “satisfactory”. On appeal, both the permanent council and the plenary of the CSM confirmed that finding.

3 . By a decision of 14 July 2022 the Judicial Division of the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s application. It was sent to the applicant’s lawyer on 15 July 2022 via the Citius electronic notification system. The applicant argued that she should be considered to have been notified of it on 18 July 2022 – that is, on the third day after it had been sent – in accordance with Article 248 § 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

4 Relying on Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention, the applicant complained that the proceedings before the CSM and the Supreme Court had been unfair. In particular, she alleged that (i) her performance rating had been determined on the basis of her assessment of the cases assigned to her, in breach of the principle of judicial independence; and (ii) the composition of the CSM had included members appointed from the political sphere, giving rise to concerns as to its impartiality.

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT

5 The Court reiterates that the four-month time-limit for lodging an application established in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention runs from the final decision in the process of exhaustion of domestic remedies (see Lekić v. Slovenia [GC], no. 36480/07, § 65, 11 December 2018). It starts running from the date on which the applicant and/or his or her representative has sufficient knowledge of the final domestic decision, provided that this date is, in principle, the date on which the decision was served (see Koç and Tosun v. Turkey (dec.), no. 23852/04, § 6, 13 November 2008). The four ‑ month period runs from the date on which the applicant’s lawyer became aware of the decision completing the exhaustion of domestic remedies, even if the applicant only became aware of the decision later (see Çelik v. Turkey (dec.), no. 52991/99, 23 September 2004). This is an autonomous rule that must be construed and applied to the facts of each individual case, so as to ensure the effective exercise of the right to individual petition (see Sabri Güneş v. Turkey [GC], no. 27396/06, § 55, 29 June 2012 ).

6 While taking account of domestic law and practice is, admittedly, an important aspect, it is not decisive in determining the starting point of the four-month period (see ibid., § 52).

7 The Court notes that the Supreme Court’s judgment of 14 July 2022 was received by the applicant’s representative via the Citius electronic notification system on 15 July 2022 (see paragraph 3 above).

8 Since the judgment was accessible to the applicant as of that date, the Court is therefore satisfied that she had all the elements necessary to lodge her application with it by 15 July 2022, and that this is the relevant date from the aspect of the four-month rule, regardless of the arrangement laid down by Article 248 § 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (see ibid., § 49).

9 For the calculation of the four-month time-limit, it is the Court’s well ‑ established case‑law that time starts to run on the day following the date on which the final decision was pronounced in public, or on which the applicant or his or her representative was informed of it, and expires four calendar months later, regardless of the actual duration of those calendar months (see Otto v. Germany (dec.), no. 21425/06, 10 November 2009).

10 In the present case, the four-month period established in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention therefore started to run on 16 July 2022 and expired at midnight on 15 November 2022. The application was lodged on 17 November 2022 – that is, after the expiry of the above-mentioned time ‑ limit (ibid., § 60).

11 It follows that the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 29 October 2026.

Simeon Petrovski Anne Louise Bormann Deputy Registrar President